50
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by overload@sopuli.xyz to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

As in, doesn't matter at all to you.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] darthelmet@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

My philosophy is that languages are made up to make communication easier and they change all the time anyway. So as long as you are understood, that's more important than getting the grammar to be perfect. Getting it like 80% right is plenty and that last 20% consists of a bunch of obscure or ambiguous rules that would take up way too much of my processing power to keep track of while communicating, thus hindering the purpose of using language in the first place. Also, English is a stupid mess of a language. I don't have enough respect for it to follow all of it's rules.

That said... what DOES bug me a little is people who make videos who regularly misuse words. Not because I think it's that big of a deal, but... come on... this is your job and you have complete control over the work at every step of the way and have so many opportunities to correct mistakes. You write the script. You read it. You watch it again while doing editing and could easily re-record bits that are wrong or awkward. Although perhaps this is less about the language specifically and more about leaving mistakes and bloopers in videos in general. That's what editing is for. We have more advanced editing tools available to the average person than ever before. USE THEM!

[-] Jentu@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 days ago

I will always use “who” because “whom” gives off too much of a Reddit vibe.

[-] Meron35@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

My pet peeve is people thinking they are being clever by complaining about the supposed incorrect usage of literally as figuratively.

People, including famous authors, have been literally (not hyperbole) using the word as an intensifier, and therefore, figuratively, since 1847, e.g. F Scott Fitzgerald, Charles Dickens, and William Thackeray.

Did we change the definition of 'literally'? | Merriam-Webster - https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally

[-] overload@sopuli.xyz 1 points 6 days ago

This one is great.

[-] simonced@lemmy.ml -1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Edit: I misread the topic, it says "in defence of", but for some reason I got it backward.
My answer is about the simple grammar I would lile to see more respected.
I leave my original answer for context.

  • Anyways instead of Anyway
  • your instead of you're
  • their instead or they're and a couple others...
[-] Ibuthyr@feddit.org 4 points 6 days ago

2 and 3 are horrible though. These completely change the meaning of a sentence :(

[-] simonced@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Thanks for the heads up, I just realize I got the topic backward! That's embarassing... Hence my message has been downvoted lol, now I can see why.

[-] irish_link@lemmy.world 49 points 1 week ago

Period AFTER the end of a quote.

My buddy Joe told me “I will live and die on this hill”.

[-] savedbythezsh@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago

I'm shocked no one else pointed this out. This isn't a rule of grammar — this is a style rule, which isn't actually part of the English language. Different style guides recommend different things. This happens to be specifically delineated by American/Canadian style guides vs British/Australian style guides; however anyone could publish a style guide. If USA Today decided to make and publish a style guide that they used in their articles that said there should be periods both within and after a quote, that would be valid by that styleguide.

[-] davidgro@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago

Absolutely. Anyone who has done any programming should recognize that changing what's in the quote is corrupting the data.

If I'm quoting a question though, then it makes sense to include the question mark in the quote.

I laughed when Joe asked "That's the hill you chose?".  
[-] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

If the murky depths of my memories of school is correct, the location of the period is dictated by whether or not it is part of the quote. So, if the quote should have a period at the end, it goes inside the quotation marks. If the quote does not include the period (e.g. you are quoting part of a sentence), but you are at the end of a sentence in your own prose, you put the period on the outside of the quotation marks.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] dessalines@lemmy.ml 33 points 1 week ago

Using commas, wherever you want.

They should be logical thought breaks, not adhere to any rules of grammar.

[-] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 21 points 1 week ago

I have to, take issue with this, one. The rules of commas are, pretty, easy actually: Use a, comma where you'd, pause when speaking. If, you read it out, loud and sound like Captain, Kirk then you put, a comma in the, wrong spot.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] overload@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 week ago

This one I'm so guilty of, it just seems fine when used in moderation, even if I know it's wrong.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Soapbox@lemmy.zip 30 points 1 week ago

"Y'all"

I will die on the hill that it's more efficient and neutral than the alternatives.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] chosensilence@pawb.social 20 points 1 week ago

informal contractions are simply informal just because. there’s no real reason to consider them informal or not standard other than arbitrary rules.

“You shouldn’t’ve done that.” “It couldn’t’ve been him!” “I might’ve done that if you asked.”

[-] overload@sopuli.xyz 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I think if I took it too far and said that all contractions are basically acceptable, y'all'd'n't've agreed with me.

[-] dessalines@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This looks aggressively welsh.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 week ago

I’d’n’t’ve had a single issue with it. In fact, I quite enjoy multi-contractions

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Strayce@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 1 week ago

A lot, to be honest. Spend enough time around non-native English speakers and you realise how little sense English makes. Their 'mistakes' have their own internal consistency and in a lot of cases make more sense than English does.

[-] original_reader@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

There are so many examples for this. Some that come to mind:

  • "He has 30 years” instead of “He is 30 years old" (Spanish “Tiene 30 años”)
  • “How do you call this?” instead of “What do you call this?” (e.g., French: Comment ça s'appelle? I think German too)
  • “I’m going in the bus” instead of “I’m going on the bus”
  • “She is more nice” instead of “She is nicer”

Apart from that, try explaining to a learner why “Read” (present) and “Read” (past) is spelled the same but pronounced differently.

Or plural (or do I capitalize that here? 🤔) inconsistencies: one “mouse,” two “mice”; but one “house,” two “houses.” To be fair, other languages do that stuff too.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] communism@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 week ago

Deliberately not capitalising proper nouns as a show of disrespect (countries, people, titles, etc). Not "grammatically correct" but I think it falls under freedom of expression.

[-] itsgroundhogdayagain@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 week ago

Passive voice is completely fine to use.

[-] evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Not only is it fine, but it's the most common (and i would say most correct) way to write scientific papers.

The tone of scientific papers is usually supposed to focus on the science, not the scientist, so you have "reagent A was mixed with reagent B", not "I mixed reagent A and reagent B".

An added bonus is that it prevents having to assign credit to each and every step of a procedure, which would be distracting. E.G., "Alice added 200 ml water to the flask while Bob weighed out 5 g of sodium hydroxide and added it to the flask".

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] daggermoon@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I'm of the opinion that so long as it is understandable it does not matter. English was once written as it sounded and there was no spelling consistancy. Those who were literate had little issue with it.

Some related reading: https://ctcamp.franklinresearch.uga.edu/resources/reading-middle-english https://cb45.hsites.harvard.edu/middle-english-basic-pronunciation-and-grammar

Edit: Okay my rant is more related to spelling than grammar but still interesting.

[-] VoxAliorum@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It's not a grammar mistake per se, but I feel like sharing it and it is close enough so here we go.

As a non-native English speaker: How can you have mop~~b~~ and vacuum the floor but not broom the room?! I know it doesn't exist, but I don't care. If we have to phrase it as a grammar mistake: I use verbalisations where they are uncommon.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Skua@kbin.earth 14 points 1 week ago

I do not like the way that unspaced em dashes look. More generally I don't think that having distinct em and en dashes is actually useful anyway, you can absolutely just use an en dash in either case with absolutely no loss of clarity or readability, but I do need to use em dashes for some work writing so I have a key on my keyboard for it and use it semi-regularly. Whenever I use an em dash outside of a professional context I space it. So, "he's coming next Monday — the 6th, that is — some time in the morning," as opposed to the more broadly-recommended, "he's coming next Monday—the 6th, that is—some time in the morning."

I have absolutely no reason for this other than subjective aesthetic preferences, but it has coincidentally become somewhat useful recently. LLMs notoriously use em dashes far more than humans but consistently use them unspaced, so it's a sort of mild defence against anything I write looking LLM-generated

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] DivineDev@piefed.social 14 points 1 week ago

In German there's the saying "macht Sinn", which is wrong since it's just a direct translation of "makes sense". Correct would be "ergibt Sinn", in English "results in sense", but I don't care, "macht Sinn" rolls off the tongue easier.

[-] AZX3RIC@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

Macht sinn to me.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 week ago

abbreviations. it doesn't save any meaningful time. it only prompts questions for clarification because people don't define the abbreviation prior to using it throughout their post. plus since everything is being abbreviated out of laziness, the same abbreviations get used for multiple things which just adds additional confusions.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] SentientFishbowl@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago

Anything that is used colloquially but technically isn't correct because some loser didn't like it 200 years ago. To boldly keep on splitting infinitives is a rejection of language prescriptivism!

[-] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago

Sometimes a sentence ending with a proposition just sounds better.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Bbbbbbbbbbb@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

I dont care about capitalizations, apostrophes, or if you shorthand words like tho as long as i can understand what youre saying from the context

[-] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago

Do u rembr txt spk? It ws vry anyng 2 read n 2 rite.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] markovs_gun@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Y'all is completely fine to use. It was a mistake for English to lose its distinction between second person singular and plural. Either we accept the word "y'all" or we go back to saying thou and thee, either way we can't just keep on awkwardly dancing around not having a distinction between second person plural and singular.

[-] EtnaAtsume@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Being excessively prescriptive or nitpicky about the prohibition on ending sentences on a preposition is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put.

[-] Nemo@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 week ago

I'm really sick of people treating AAVE and other dialects like grammar mistakes, is what. Grammar Nazis indeed, protecting the purity of the English language.

Singular they. I've had this opinion since long before I even knew about non-binary people. Using "he or she" to refer to a person without specifying gender is clunky as hell.

[-] fishsayhelo@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago

but singular they isn't incorrect in the least. anyone claiming otherwise has some agenda to push in spite of the facts of it's use for a good long while

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2025
50 points (89.1% liked)

Asklemmy

49665 readers
711 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS